April 27, 2010

First I want to start by saying, I wanted to write about Cass Sunstein’s paper about banning conspiracy theories and how the government should infiltrate opposition groups. It’s like something out of 1984 or Atlas Shrugged. Well in doing my research for the post I found this article by Glenn Greenwald, and I can’t hope to even come close to hitting it on the head like he did so I will just let you read his article, and give props to him. Well done Mr. Greenwald.

Now, on to the point. The Associated Press, and others, happily reported that GM paid back its initial government loan with interest, ahead of schedule. The article also reports, in the same exuberant fashion, that GM still owes the government $45 billion. They also note that GM is losing money, and that the taxpayers are expected to lose money overall, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Yah I know, doesn’t make any sense to me either.

The article also quotes several ranking government officials talking about how great this is, how it shows GM is on the upswing, etc. Guess they didn’t get the memo that GM is still losing money. But, this is great right? We are getting our money back, with interest.

No, turns out that GM used other government money to pay off the initial government money. In my opinion I would say that they just gave back money from the second loan, and still owe us money from the first one. It’s not really like paying off one credit card with another, it’s more like paying off one credit card with the same one. I know, doesn’t work that way for us so why does it work that way for GM? This second revealing article goes on with:

“But it still is, as Barofsky notes, relatively good news. The fact that they were able to use money in that escrow account to pay back the first round of loans is because it doesn’t look like they’re going to need that money for operating capital — and that means the company is getting close to a break even point, which is certainly worth celebrating so soon after emerging from bankruptcy.”

Raise your eyebrows as well? The company is losing money, the only way they are going to be able to pay this money back in the near future is to sell of company shares according to the first article in this post. That isn’t making money, or turning a profit, that’s selling shares of a failing company to the public to give that money to the government. Would that be considered fraudulent trading? Is that the same as a Ponzi scheme? I think perhaps our politicians and government officials need to start following the old adage, don’t count your chickens before they hatch. (Is that what an adage is?) Maybe they aren’t tired of looking stupid every time something goes the opposite of how they predicted.

Sorry I have been slacking of late. Illness, getting ready for the yearly Samhain bash, and issues with the child and his schoolwork have kept me swamped. I would promise to do better, but I know Me so I will just say, I will try. Now on to the fantastic world of ‘progressive media’ and ‘network neutrality’.

Alright, let’s start by saying, right now there is nothing currently in congress that I know of that will take away your right to freedom of speech or free press. What we do have though, is more and more people in and around the administration that openly believe that free speech is too free, free press is too free, and internet isn’t free enough. Let’s start with the first two, because they are interconnected.

From Mark Lloyd, FCC diversity czar…

“It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press. This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies.”

Now, we have talked about his views on the fairness doctrine, and how ‘it isn’t enough’ so I won’t revisit. Bottom line, when ANYONE in government, or a government agency says that ANY right is an exaggeration we should be leary. Will some creative people abuse a right, or misuse the constitution to their own ends? Yes. That is beside the point though, these rights protect vastly more Americans than those that take advantage of them.

How bout from Cass Sunstein?

“A legislative effort to regulate broadcasting in the interest of democratic principles should not be seen as an abridgment of the free speech guarantee.”
–Cass R. Sunstein, Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech, The Free Press, 1995, p. 92

“I have argued in favor of a reformulation of First Amendment law. The overriding goal of the reformulation is to reinvigorate processes of democratic deliberation, by ensuring greater attention to public issues and greater diversity of views. The First Amendment should not stand as an obstacle to democratic efforts to accomplish these goals. A New Deal for speech would draw on Justice Brandeis’ insistence on the role of free speech in promoting political deliberation and citizenship. It would reject Justice Holmes’ “marketplace” conception of free speech, a conception that disserves the aspirations of those who wrote America’s founding document.”
–Cass R. Sunstein, Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech, The Free Press, 1995, p. 119

“Consider the “fairness doctrine,” now largely abandoned but once requiring radio and television broadcasters: …[I]n light of astonishing economic and technological changes, we must doubt whether, as interpreted, the constitutional guarantee of free speech is adequately serving democratic goals. It is past time for a large-scale reassessment of the appropriate role of the First Amendment in the democratic process.”
–Cass R. Sunstein, Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech, The Free Press, 1995, p. xi

“A system of limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not necessarily in the interest of citizenship and self-government.”
–Cass Sunstein, arguing for a Fairness Doctrine for the Internet in his book, Republic.com 2.0 (Princeton University Press, 2007), p.137

Heard enough? Yeah me too. What don’t these people understand? Have they read the constitution? It is pretty clear…

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise therof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peacably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

What is so hard to understand about that sentence? Do they need clarification?

“Without Freedom of Thought there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as Public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech.” -Benjamin Franklin, writing as Silence Dogood, No. 8, July 9, 1722

“Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and cannot be limited without being lost.” -Thomas Jefferson

Pretty simple if you ask me. Now the last thing I mentioned was Network Neutrality. If you don’t know what that is check out Free Press and their site. When you do you need to ask yourself a few things. You see, they want the government to take control of the internet and make it free to everyone. They think that content should be ‘fair’ and ‘balanced’ (have we heard this before? Oh yeah, the fairness doctrine). Free Press believes in another welfare handout for everyone, the internet. Now ask yourself, has any amenity that is offered free to everyone, ever been any good? How do they think that the internet, and network technology has advanced as rapidly as it has? It is because there is profit to be made. Yeah I know, some people would like you to believe that profit is bad, and those who seek it are evil, but profit is also what drives innovation. Does anyone really think that faster internet was developed out of the kindness of someone’s heard? Does anyone believe that the personal computer was developed because a couple of geeks wanted to give everyone in the world a free computer? If Network Neutrality is realized the government will have control over the internet. This may give them the power to control what you see, what you can read, what you can post. It will also put telecom companies out of business, and no matter how much we hate paying those bills, those bills are the reason that we have faster and faster internet. One sure way to make internet a shining symbol of mediocrity is to make it free, and give control to our government.

Keep your eyes open, the more control we allow government to take, the more liberty we throw away.

‘Czar’ is a term that has been applied to a slew of political advisers that President Obama has put in place to oversee, or advise on a wide variety of issues. For the most part, we the people, have no say in their selection or appointment, and neither does Congress. Many of them are friends, former colleagues, or supporters of the President, and a vast majority of them are inexperienced in the areas to which they have been appointed. As if that isn’t enough to be concerned about, many of them have ideological views that are so alien, so foreign, that you may not even believe me when I point a few of them out. Granted, these people cannot directly affect policy, but they have the ability to sway, to argue, and to ‘nudge’ (more on that later) the people who do.

Let’s start with the science czar, Mr. Holdren. This man believes in forced abortion, and sterilization for population control. He also believes in global control over economics, and direct control over American lives through an international police force. Here are a few of his gems. I will leave it to the author of the linked post, because he does a much better job than I have time to do. Granted Mr. Holdren denied believing any of the things he wrote back in 1973, when he was selected for his current post. Of course he did, wouldn’t you? He may be completely honest, and he may truly not agree with his views from 30 years ago, but all I am saying is pay attention. We have four years at least, to figure out what this guy really thinks.

Next we gotta look at the new regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein. He believes that animals should have the right to sue, in legal court, anyone that might be in violation of their rights. He advocates giving animals, livestock, and wildlife the same rights as humans, and he thinks we should ban hunting, disregarding that fact that through our short stay on this continent we have almost guaranteed that without some form of hunting the prey wildlife population would get out of hand, and foment disease, and a wide variety of other over population issues. He also sides with people that believe that even having a pet is wrong. Now, this is a view of a lot of animal rights people, and to a certain extent some of these views are valid. Don’t get me wrong here, animals should not be caused unnecessary harm, but, animals are part of the food chain, and we are animals. Cass Sunstein believes that we should be moving away from eating meat as well, and not only is that against nature, but I love meat. We should be using the most humane method to raise, and then put down food livestock, but we should not do away with it all together. I told you I would explain ‘nudge’, well, it is a book that Cass Sunstein co-wrote in which he explains that the majority of people are just too stupid to make responsible decisions. This book advocates a type of parent state in which the government ‘nudges’ you to make good decisions. They don’t force you, because then you might catch on to the fact that you are losing your freedoms, but they just kinda ‘nudge’ in what they think is the right direction. Watch for the little things folks, that is how they do it. They are going to ‘nudge’ you to be green, ‘nudge’ you to be healthier, ‘nudge’ you into public service (look up anything about the new bill to get rid of private student loans), and ‘nudge’ you to unionize (yep, they are trying to get fast track, Canada’s version of forced unionization).

Finally, there seems to be a pretty decent connection between Mr. Sunstein and Peter Singer. Singer advocates many of the same animal rights, which aren’t so alarming, but the other things he does advocate will blow your mind. He believes that a smart dog is more valuable than a mentally deficient human. A child is not really human until the age of 2 so therefore can be aborted up to that point. He also believes that people should have a value placed on their lives based on their age, those who are older being worth less than younger people.

Now, all of this can be interpreted many ways, and I am not saying that these views are definitely going to filter into White House policy, all I am saying is pay attention. An informed people are very dangerous to the government, and when they realize that we are starting to pay attention they will start using their heads. Take the Health Care Bill for example. It is failing now, more and more Democrats are joining the side of opposition because people in their district are starting to speak up. They are educating themselves, and in many cases have read the bill that their own representatives have not. They work for us, and in small increments we are starting to make them realize that.